Ridiculous things you learn! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

m10bob -> Ridiculous things you learn! (5/29/2009 7:03:30 PM)

In 1944, Gen Chennault's 14th air force had B 24 bombers with the range to hit mainland Japan and Formosa, and had been very effective sinking Japanese shipping off the coast of China, but he was forbidden to hit Japan and Formosa because, at that time, the Japanese and the Chinese on the ground had reached a stalemate, and had reached an unofficial truce. Washington D.C. did not want to do anything which might rock the boat with Chaing Kai Shek..

In fact, Chaing was so hard to get along with, he tried to charge the U.S. $800 million to build 4 B 29 bases north of Chunking. It mattered not that those bombers were going to be bombing a common foe, nor that the allies had been helping him with HIS war for years.

Stilwell had earlier predicted Chaing was "willing to let the Americans win the war for him", so he (Chaing) could prep HIS forces to take on Mao at wars end......

This is from THE PACIFIC WAR 1941-1945 by John Costello,(which has certain errors, mostly concerning OOB's), but he does quote sources thru-out...........

The biggest errors I have found with the book is he often identifies divisions, when it should be regiments, and vice a versa..




Japan -> RE: Ridiculous things you learn! (5/29/2009 7:19:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

In 1944, Gen Chennault's 14th air force had B 24 bombers with the range to hit mainland Japan and Formosa, and had been very effective sinking Japanese shipping off the coast of China, but he was forbidden to hit Japan and Formosa because, at that time, the Japanese and the Chinese on the ground had reached a stalemate, and had reached an unofficial truce. Washington D.C. did not want to do anything which might rock the boat with Chaing Kai Shek..

In fact, Chaing was so hard to get along with, he tried to charge the U.S. $800 million to build 4 B 29 bases north of Chunking. It mattered not that those bombers were going to be bombing a common foe, nor that the allies had been helping him with HIS war for years.

Stilwell had earlier predicted Chaing was "willing to let the Americans win the war for him", so he (Chaing) could prep HIS forces to take on Mao at wars end......

This is from THE PACIFIC WAR 1941-1945 by John Costello,(which has certain errors, mostly concerning OOB's), but he does quote sources thru-out...........

The biggest errors I have found with the book is he often identifies divisions, when it should be regiments, and vice a versa..





Yup, you should however check out what happend next.




anarchyintheuk -> RE: Ridiculous things you learn! (5/29/2009 7:55:38 PM)

Chiang and Stilwell were in agreement re not using B-24s (and B-29s) to hit Japan and Formosa. Their reasoning (and it turned out to be quite sound) was that any significant strategic bombing from bases in China would result in the IJA simply taking the airfields from which they were based. This happened during the resulting Ichigo Offensive. Not one of Chennault's better moments.



crsutton -> RE: Ridiculous things you learn! (5/29/2009 10:18:49 PM)

I suggest you read "Stillwell and the American Experience in China" by Barbara Tuchman. She is not too kind to Chennault.

An excellent book.



joey -> RE: Ridiculous things you learn! (5/30/2009 2:30:37 AM)

Stillwell and Chaing did not like each other in any form. Chaing actively lobbied for Stillwell's removal form SE Asia. He eventually succeeded. The actually agreed to almost nothing. One wanted to fight; the other did not.



Yamato hugger -> RE: Ridiculous things you learn! (5/30/2009 12:20:43 PM)

Frankly, I have been a long standing advocate of removing China from the game and have the divisions released from there and Manchuria enter as reinforcements for precisely this reason. But I usually get poo-pooed.



joey -> RE: Ridiculous things you learn! (5/30/2009 6:58:20 PM)

I agree China adds little to the game. In reality, Japan could have taken much of Japan if only they had wanted to. China was in fact not much more than an assortment of war loads somewhat friendly with Chaing. In most engagements, the warloads left the field of battle with their troops- never firing their weapons. Not a method to win a battles.



m10bob -> RE: Ridiculous things you learn! (5/31/2009 4:35:58 AM)

Indeed....I have found several instances where warlords had united to attack a Japanese foe, only to engage each other in front of a now surprised (and entertained) Japanese force....



Radio -> RE: Ridiculous things you learn! (5/31/2009 10:08:56 PM)

I disagree about removing China. Even though land combat in China is laborious and rarely offers the satisfaction of a sudden ambush on the high seas the fact that its there is a major part of the appeal of War in The Pacific to me. It showcases the complete war against Japan in a way that most games don't. Perhaps the mechanics could be altered to better reflect the fragmented nature of China (reduced number of units, Garrison requirements or maybe even a percentage chance any given force just stays put or goes off in a random direction) but just cutting it out would be like removing Australia or India which played far less of a role than China (in terms of fighting on their territory rather than commitment).

I'm also not entirely certain that Japan could have taken as much of China as it wanted - they weren't there for a laugh and if they could of overrun the whole country they would of. The problem was garrisoning it.



Edit: What I'm trying to say is it would dramatically reduce the alternative options availdable to either player which are such an appeal to wargamers. The option to try out a strategic bombing campaign from the continent should be open to the Allied player, and the Japanese should be welcome to try a ground counter offensive in response.



Charles2222 -> RE: Ridiculous things you learn! (6/1/2009 3:00:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RabidGibbon

I disagree about removing China. Even though land combat in China is laborious and rarely offers the satisfaction of a sudden ambush on the high seas the fact that its there is a major part of the appeal of War in The Pacific to me. It showcases the complete war against Japan in a way that most games don't. Perhaps the mechanics could be altered to better reflect the fragmented nature of China (reduced number of units, Garrison requirements or maybe even a percentage chance any given force just stays put or goes off in a random direction) but just cutting it out would be like removing Australia or India which played far less of a role than China (in terms of fighting on their territory rather than commitment).

I'm also not entirely certain that Japan could have taken as much of China as it wanted - they weren't there for a laugh and if they could of overrun the whole country they would of. The problem was garrisoning it.



Edit: What I'm trying to say is it would dramatically reduce the alternative options availdable to either player which are such an appeal to wargamers. The option to try out a strategic bombing campaign from the continent should be open to the Allied player, and the Japanese should be welcome to try a ground counter offensive in response.

I agree with you 100%. It's really lame to even consider losing China in the game, when you consider what you said, plus the fact that the USA had stopped sending fuel to Japan because of China, which prompted Japan to retaliate and enter WWII. Plus, it's the fact that with the game as it is, the IJ player gets to control all of IJ activity, and how sad it would be to leave off such a crucial theatre and therefore limit the IJ player's control.



mdiehl -> RE: Ridiculous things you learn! (6/1/2009 5:44:39 PM)

Taking China was the whole reason why Japan went to war. Their choice was to back down on China or else try to secure the oil and other assets required to continue the war in China. The IJA was *hopelessly* bogged down in China, and the eventual push in western China utterly exhausted Japan's logistical capability in China.

If Imperial Japan could have "finished off China any time they wanted," Imperial Japan would have done so, because that was Imperial Japan's *primary* strategic goal from 1936 onward.



crsutton -> RE: Ridiculous things you learn! (6/1/2009 6:38:55 PM)

Yes, you could not ever remove China from a game such as this. China was a big fat "Tar Baby", and Japan went and stuck her boot right in it. Sucked her dry. There was still a lot of fighting there and a lot of Chinese died bravely fighting Japan. Don't equate Chang with the Chinese people, who did hate and resist Japan-within means.

I have a good idea how many Chinese died. Anybody have an idea of how many Japanese died in China and Korea? Had to be a lot.



ckammp -> RE: Ridiculous things you learn! (6/1/2009 9:22:00 PM)

deleted



crsutton -> RE: Ridiculous things you learn! (6/1/2009 9:35:42 PM)

Thanks for the figures.



Yamato hugger -> RE: Ridiculous things you learn! (6/1/2009 11:08:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RabidGibbon

Edit: What I'm trying to say is it would dramatically reduce the alternative options availdable to either player which are such an appeal to wargamers. The option to try out a strategic bombing campaign from the continent should be open to the Allied player, and the Japanese should be welcome to try a ground counter offensive in response.



Well heres the basic problems with China (in no particular order and certainly not a complete list).

1) As for allied air operating out of China: Them big bombers requires 100 octane av gas and bombs. Something that China didnt produce in quantities suffient to support operations. It all had to be flown in. The game doesnt take that into effect. A supply point is a supply point.

2) Politics was rampant in China. You have the commies, Chaing, and a few dozen warlords all with different goals and ambitions, not to mention US and USSR "advisors". There is no way a single player is going to divide his mind to make all these different forces operate "for themselves", he is going to use them as a coordinated mass to achieve HIS goal.

3) Combat on the islands and atolls was very different from the massive land battles in China. The combat system really cant handle both very well (and some would say it handles both badly).



Radio -> RE: Ridiculous things you learn! (6/2/2009 12:51:28 AM)

Yamato Hugger,

the problems you state are all well thought out and show the difficultly a computer game has portraying the entirety of the war in the pacific. The counter arguments I would present are:

Allied Air operating out of China - It would have been a logistic nightmare to operate heavy bombers out of china, Its not somthing I've ever done and I dont think it could have been done (even though I used it as an example of why china should be kept in the game). However before removing China altogether perhaps limiting all Chinese airfields to size 3 would work better. I think this would stop an allied air offensive from China. I agree the allied player shouldn't be able to fly dozens of B-xx out of China.

Politics was ramapnt in China - I agree, yet the japanese still found it hard to advance into the interior. Perhaps very large fixed infantry units on each base would better represent the warlords who were interested in preserving their fief above defending china as a whole. The mobile chinese units (Which would be far fewer than those currently availdable to the allied player) could be moved to support these units as Japanese attacks were identified. As I mentioned before perhaps the chinese could also be required to garisson their cities up to a certain assault value in order to reflect this. I would rather use game mechanics to cripple china than remove it all together.

Combat on the islands and atolls was very different from the massive land battles in China - The potential battles that would have occurred in Australia or India following a Japanese Invasion would not have matched the battles fought on atoll's and islands - nor did the fighting that was fought in Burma and at Imphal and Kohima. Yet these theatres are still in game. Should every land mass become a large blank blob in order to accomodate the engine? Or would players rather accept a flawed engine and play out the entire pacific campaign.




Anthropoid -> RE: Ridiculous things you learn! (6/2/2009 1:25:34 AM)

Hey Yamato, have you had a bad experience with an allied opponenet going gamey on you with stuff in China? Or do you feel it is an exploit for allied player against AI? I see your points, but I tend to agree with these guys that taking it out of the game is too extreme a 'solution.' Seems that either house-rules between PBEM opponents or self-rules imposed when playing the AI could make China's role in the game more realistic, no? Heck, I find that if i want to enjoy the game against the AI at all, I need to impose self-rules.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.53125